8 �� 14.8 years, and 29 patients (64%) were male. Forty patients (89%) were after CVA, while the remaining patients were diagnosed with a brain lesion due to resection of a brain tumor (n = 3) or a traumatic brain injury (n = 2). The average time since diagnosis was 5.37 �� 5.43 years, and 24 patients (53%) had right-side hemiparesis. Five patients were Volasertib in the subacute phase of rehabilitation (i.e., 2�C6 months since the insult), while 40 of the subjects (89%) had chronic hemiparesis (i.e., more than six months since the insult). Prior to initiation of the study, 38 of the subjects (84%) had used a device to correct their foot drop, with 23 patients (51%) using the NESS L300, 13 using an ankle-foot orthosis (29%), and 2 (4%) using a Dictus band foot-drop aid (Erimed International KB, Sweden).

3.2. Gait PerformanceAll patients were able to walk with the dual channel FES immediately after fitting, with 39 patients (87%) using the system with the thigh FES applied on the hamstrings and six patients (13%) with it applied on the quadriceps. Table 1 summarizes the group means and standard deviations of all measured temporal gait outcomes at each assessment (T1��study initiation; T2��after six weeks of daily use) and presents the Freidman’s test analysis results. As the table shows, significant condition effects were found at each assessment. Table 1Group means, standard deviations of all measured gait performance variables, and results of analysis of Freidman’s test.Table 2 shows the Holm’s post hoc analysis of multiple comparisons.

The comparison between the peroneal stimulation and no stimulation conditions demonstrated a significant orthotic effect in all variables, with the exception of single-limb stance percentage at T1. It should be noted that the effect of the peroneal and thigh stimulation in comparison to no stimulation was significant for all variables.Table 2Post hoc analysis comparing all pairs of conditions (at T1 and T2). P values are presented only when the results were significant (P value < Holm's critical value).The post hoc tests comparing performance between peroneal and thigh FES and peroneal FES alone indicated further significant improvement with the dual-channel FES. Gait velocity (measured by two-minute gait speed and obstacle course gait velocity) was enhanced with peroneal and thigh FES, as compared to peroneal stimulation alone, at both assessments.

For example, at T2, the two-minute gait speed measurements with peroneal FES alone and with the dual channel FES were 0.66 �� 0.30m/sec and 0.70 �� 0.31, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the obstacle course gait velocity measurements were 0.40 Dacomitinib �� 0.20m/sec and 0.43 �� 0.21m/sec, respectively (P < 0.0001). Additional significant differences in gait dynamics were demonstrated in the comparison of the two FES conditions.